Section 3.1 Introduction

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.1-1 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, 

AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

3.1 Introduction

This chapter addresses existing environmental conditions and the Fresno to Bakersfield Locally 

Generated Alternative’s (F-B LGA) potential impacts on environmental resources, examining 

each resource in a separate subsection. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has prepared 

this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the F-B LGA of the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section California High-Speed Train1 Final Project Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS) under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) 

has prepared this Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Authority and FRA have prepared this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS as a joint CEQA/NEPA document. The Authority and the FRA have used 

their best judgment in preparing this combined Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS to satisfy both NEPA 

and CEQA requirements. Please refer to the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS Chapter 

3.1, Introduction, for more information on the NEPA and CEQA requirements. 

In addition to CEQA and NEPA, the F-B LGA is subject to other federal and state environmental 

statutes and regulations, requiring analyses that must be incorporated into the joint Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS (as applicable, compliance analysis for federal and state environmental 

statutes and regulations is presented in Chapter 3 of this Supplemental EIR/EIS). In 

circumstances where more than one regulation or statute might apply, this joint Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS has been prepared to comply with the more stringent or inclusive set of 

requirements, whether federal or state.

The Authority and FRA have focused on avoiding and minimizing potential impacts of the F-B 

LGA through rigorous planning and thoughtful design, informed by the decisions they made at the 

conclusion of the Statewide Program EIR/EIS process, including the adopted mitigation

strategies. The F-B LGA described in Chapter 2 and analyzed in Chapter 3 incorporates, as part 

of its description, means to avoid and minimize impacts through design, and compliance with 

applicable laws and regulations, and with established industry standards, as reflected in Appendix 

2-D, Applicable Design Standards, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. Chapter 3 

of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS summarizes mitigation strategy measures for the system-wide 

HSR project and the Fresno to Bakersfield Section and, as applicable, identifies mitigation 

strategy measures specific to the F-B LGA, including the proposed station and additional 

facilities, such as the power conveyance and maintenance facilities. For new mitigation measures 

that are identified specific for the F-B LGA the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement 

Plan would be amended to include new mitigation measures should the F-B LGA be selected as 

the Preferred Alternative from Shafter to Bakersfield. 

3.1.1 Purpose of Chapter 3

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the effect on the environment from implementation of 

the F-B LGA as described in Chapter 2, F-B LGA Project Description per CEQA and NEPA

guidelines. The analyses address the impacts of the F-B LGA (including the F Street Station and

the Maintenance of Infrastructure Facility). The analyses also evaluate impacts associated with 

related infrastructure changes required to accommodate the F-B LGA, such as roadway and 

interchange modifications, utility relocation, addition of power substations, and construction 

staging and laydown areas. This document also identifies appropriate mitigation measures, 

1 It should be noted that at the time of circulation of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, the 

Authority used the “California High-Speed Train” as the name of the overall Project rather than the 

“California High-Speed Rail” as is currently used. In instances where this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS refers 

to the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, the name “California High-Speed Train” will be used. 
Section 3.1 Introduction

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.1-2 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

analyzes potential secondary impacts resulting from mitigation, and describes the feasibility of 

mitigation. 

3.1.2 Organization of Chapter 3

Chapter 3 presents each environmental resource topic in its own section, as follows: 

• Section 3.2, Transportation

• Section 3.3, Air Quality and Global Climate Change

• Section 3.4, Noise and Vibration

• Section 3.5, Electromagnetic Fields and Electromagnetic Interference

• Section 3.6, Public Utilities and Energy

• Section 3.7, Biological Resources and Wetlands

• Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Resources

• Section 3.9, Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

• Section 3.10, Hazardous Materials and Waste

• Section 3.11, Safety and Security

• Section 3.12, Socioeconomics and Communities2

• Section 3.13, Station Planning, Land Use, and Development

• Section 3.14, Agricultural Lands

• Section 3.15, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space

• Section 3.16, Aesthetics and Visual Resources

• Section 3.17, Cultural Resources

• Section 3.18, Regional Growth

• Section 3.19, Cumulative Impacts

Many of the sections prepared for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS were 

supported by technical reports containing additional detailed technical analyses and data. The 

Authority and FRA determined that several of the technical reports prepared for the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS contained sufficient detail and comparable regional analysis to 

use for the F-B LGA. Some technical reports were prepared in support of agency approvals, for 

example, the Supplemental Biological Assessment was prepared for the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s consultation. The F-B LGA technical reports containing technical analyses and 

data used to analyze the impacts of the F-B LGA include the following: 

• Transportation Technical Report

• Air Quality Technical Report

• Noise and Vibration Technical Report

• Biological Resources and Wetlands Technical Reports

− Wetlands Report (Preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation)

− Biological Resources and Wetlands Report

− Biological Assessment Report

• Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Report

• Supplemental Community Impact Assessment Technical Report

• Cultural Resources Technical Reports

− Area of Potential Effects (APE) Maps

 Architectural APE Map

 Archaeological APE Map

• Archaeological Survey Report (ASR)

• Historic Architectural Survey Report (HASR)

• Traditional Cultural Properties Study

• Historic Property Survey Report

2 It should be noted that the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS combined Socioeconomics, 

Communities, and Environmental Justice into Chapter 3, Section 3.12, but Environmental Justice is 

discussed in Chapter 5 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. 
Section 3.1 Introduction

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.1-3 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

• Finding of Effect

• Archaeology and Built Environment Treatment Plans

• Supplemental ASR and Archaeological APE Map

• Supplemental HASR and Architectural APE Map

• Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Methodology Memorandum

The technical reports that were not updated for the F-B LGA can be found at the California HighSpeed Rail Authority website. The technical reports that were not updated include: 

• Aesthetics and Visual Resources

• Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

• Paleontological Resources

• Geoarchaeological Investigation

The technical reports were not circulated with the Draft, the Revised Draft, or the Final EIR/EIS 

for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section EIR/EIS, and they will not be circulated with this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS. Although the resource topic sections summarize technical material, 

models, and similar information, the detailed and highly technical data are available as 

appendices to this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. Analysts used many sources to prepare this 

document. Chapter 12, References/Sources Used in Document Preparation, lists these sources.

3.1.3 Content of Chapter 3

This section summarizes the type of information contained in the subsections for each resource 

and generally describes the approach to the impact analysis. 

In all resource sections, information for the F-B LGA is presented from north to south. See 

Section 2.0 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS for a full discussion of the 

alternative alignments evaluated in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. In some 

instances, references used in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS are used in

evaluating the F-B LGA in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. References used for this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS are shown at the end of each resource section in Chapter 3. 

For the purposes of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, the project vicinities used to describe and 

illustrate the affected environment and impacts focus on the cities of Shafter and Bakersfield. The 

community of Oildale and unincorporated Kern County are included in the discussion, as 

appropriate. Each resource topic addressed in Chapter 3 includes the following sections:

3.1.3.1 Introduction

The introduction presents the reader with an overview of the resource topic and the critical issues 

and concerns considered in the analysis.

3.1.3.2 Regulatory Setting

The detailed regulatory setting discussion for each resource topic can be found in the appropriate 

section of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. In this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, 

each resource topic section identifies the relevant regulatory framework, and includes statutes of 

CEQA and NEPA, as well as other regulatory agency guidelines relevant to project approvals or 

decisions that are new or revised since the Authority certified the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final EIR/EIS. This section also describes consistencies and/or conflicts between the F-B LGA

and adopted regional or local plans or laws pertaining to the resource topic.

3.1.3.3 Methods for Evaluating Impacts

The methods used to collect data and evaluate potential impacts in this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS are similar and consistent to the data collection and impact evaluation methods used in 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. The regional study areas presented in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS are used to evaluate resources in the Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS, as appropriate. Where applicable, data collected for the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (including data from 2010) have been used to evaluate impacts 

associated with development of the F-B LGA. As described in more detail below, preparation of 
Section 3.1 Introduction

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.1-4 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS also includes current (2015) data to evaluate impacts of the F-B 

LGA. Comparable 2015 data is also used, as needed, for the May 2014 Project, as reflected in 

the individual resource sections and in Chapter 8 and Appendix 8-A of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS, in order to facilitate an apples-to-apples comparison with the F-B LGA.

3

For the analysis of each resource area, this Supplemental 

EIR/EIS uses either data collected for the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS (including data from 2010) or current 

(2015) data to evaluate impacts of the F-B LGA relative to the 

May 2014 Project. For each analysis, the same data set is

used to evaluate the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA to allow 

for direct comparison of the two alternatives. Where applicable, 

the data sets that were used for the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS are used for the evaluation of the F-B 

LGA to allow for direct comparison between the two 

alternatives without requiring reevaluation of the May 2014 

Project. Examples of this include geologic and paleontological 

resources, where the initial data collected for the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS were still valid for performing 

analysis of the F-B LGA because the existing setting had not 

changed substantially. In cases where the existing setting had 

changed substantially since publication of the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, this Supplemental EIR/EIS 

uses updated data sets to evaluate the F-B LGA. In these 

cases, the May 2014 Project was reevaluated based on the 

updated data set in order to allow for direct comparison of the 

two alternatives. Specifically, data sets for traffic, 

socioeconomics and communities, and agricultural lands have 

been updated for the May 2014 Project analyses to account for 

any changes that have occurred since circulation of the Fresno 

to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS and to reflect the most 

current conditions in the project area in order to provide an 

accurate and equivalent comparison with the F-B LGA. For example, the baseline and future 

(year 2035) traffic conditions for the F-B LGA are analyzed in this Supplemental EIR/EIS using 

new baseline data (year 2015) and the updated Kern Council of Governments Model 

Improvement Program travel demand model. As a result, the traffic analyses for the No Project 

Alternative and the May 2014 Project have been updated with the same baseline data to allow for 

comparison of all three alternatives under the same baseline and future conditions. Analysis of 

the roadways and intersections for the F-B LGA, including those in the vicinity of the proposed F 

Street Station, also required current traffic counts. Accordingly, updated traffic counts were taken 

for F-B LGA study area roadways and intersections, as well as for the May 2014 Project’s Truxtun 

Avenue Station, to accurately reflect roadway modifications not yet developed or planned when 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS was approved. 

In other instances, the data set included in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS was 

provided for the entire segment from Fresno to Bakersfield and discrete data sets for the 

subsection comprised of the May 2014 Project were not provided. In these cases, updated data 

sets have been used to evaluate both the F-B LGA and May 2014 Project. For example, the 

socioeconomic analysis of the F-B LGA required a count of displaced residential units, 

businesses, community facilities, and agricultural lands. Because the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS did not provide this information specifically for the May 2014 Project, the 

number of displacements discussed in the Final EIR/EIS were not comparable to those evaluated 

What is the Project Study Area?

For this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, 

the study area extends southeast 

from just north of Poplar Avenue in 

the city of Shafter, continues east 

through the agricultural lands within 

the city of Shafter limits, continues 

southeast through northern 

Bakersfield, and then continues east 

to Oswell Street in the city of 

Bakersfield.

3 The May 2014 Project consists of a portion of the BNSF Alternative [from Poplar Avenue to Hageman 

Road] and the Bakersfield Hybrid Alternative [from Hageman Road to Oswell Street]. For additional 

description of the May 2014 Project, refer to Sections 2.2 and 8.2 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS.
Section 3.1 Introduction

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.1-5 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

for the F-B LGA. Rather than attempt to extract the 2010 values from the Final EIR/EIS for just 

the May 2014 Project, instead the analysis in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS includes a count of 

displacements for the F-B LGA and May 2014 Project based on the most recent land use 

information.

This section describes the methods used to collect data and evaluate potential impacts and 

includes the following:

• Study Area for Analysis. The resource study area is the area in which all environmental

investigations specific to each Supplemental EIR/EIS resource topic are conducted in order

to determine the resource characteristics and potential impacts of the F-B LGA. A discussion

of the differences between the F-B LGA and those identified in the Fresno to Bakersfield

Section Final EIR/EIS are provided in Technical Appendix 8-A. Furthermore, the resource

study areas applied in the comparison of the F-B LGA and the May 2014 Project are the

same and are discussed further in Technical Appendix 8-A. The resource study area contains

all of these components:

− All facilities or features within the project footprint, particularly the proposed F Street

Station, maintenance facilities, and consequential actions that affect the environmental

resource

− Areas necessary to determine characteristics and context for a specific resource area

within a project segment

− Areas specific to each resource to evaluate the intensity and determine the significance

of direct and indirect impacts, beneficial and adverse impacts of HSR improvements and

activities

− Areas needed to implement, operate, or maintain mitigation measures

− Off-site mitigation measures and mitigation sites (including relocations)

− Areas to identify and analyze potential secondary impacts from implementing mitigation

The project footprint is a more focused area that includes all project components and right-of-way 

needed to construct and operate the F-B LGA. The project footprint components include the 

proposed HSR right-of-way and associated facilities, such as traction power supply stations and 

switching and paralleling stations, as well as the shifts in roadway rights-of-way associated with 

those facilities—including overcrossings and interchanges—that would be modified or shifted to 

accommodate the HSR project, as described in Chapter 2 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, 

F-B LGA Project Description. Figure 3-1 shows an example of shifts in the roadway and other

infrastructure that would be included in the project footprint. Note that the figure is provided as an

example and does not show an actual location along the F-B LGA.

Development of the F-B LGA would require acquisition of property necessary for project 

operation. When the remnant portion of an acquired parcel beyond the right-of-way is too small to 

sustain current use without other modifications, the remnant portion would also be acquired. 

These remnant parcels would not be used for construction and would be sold after project 

construction.

The Authority will not acquire temporary construction staging areas through the right-of-way 

acquisition process. It will be the responsibility of the Design-Build Contractor to negotiate with 

the property owners to secure access and temporary use of their property for staging or lay-down 

areas. To provide the Design-Build Contractor with sufficient potential staging areas, this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS, consistent with the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, includes 

an evaluation of the environmental impacts on various vacant parcels that are located adjacent to 

or near parts of the project that would require construction staging and lay-down areas such as 

bridges, and elevated structures, etc. An evaluation of impacts from potential construction areas 

would result in a conservative analysis because this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS uses parcel 

boundaries and not the actual acreage that would be necessary for staging or storage of 

materials to calculate impacts.
Section 3.1 Introduction

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.1-6 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3-1 Shifts of Roadways and Other Infrastructure 

Methods for Evaluating Impacts under NEPA

Regulations implementing NEPA require the analysis of potential impacts in terms of the project’s 

context, intensity, and duration. FRA, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit 

Administration guidelines are used when applicable. In other cases, qualitative or quantitative 

analysis describe potential impacts in terms of context, intensity, and duration. The nature of this 

analysis depends on the resource analyzed. 

In the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, analysts applied specified thresholds for each 

resource topic to assess whether the intensity of each impact is negligible, moderate, or 

substantial for the Build Alternatives, and provided a conclusion of whether the impact was 

“significant”. Since the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS does not evaluate the May 

2014 Project as a discrete subsection of the Fresno to Bakersfield Project (as it did for example 

for the Allensworth Bypass), it does not provide conclusions using intensity thresholds for the May 

2014 Project. Therefore, intensity thresholds are not used for the F-B LGA. Instead, the 

evaluation of impacts under NEPA in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS focuses on a 

comprehensive discussion of the project’s potential impacts in terms of context, intensity, and 

duration and provides agency decision makers and the public with an apples-to-apples 

comparison between the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA. 

Methods for Determining Significance under CEQA

For each resource topic, analysts use criteria based predominantly on the CEQA Guidelines to

determine where and when mitigation measures are warranted to reduce the magnitude and

severity of adverse impacts. These criteria generally describe whether impacts would be

considered significant or whether a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change would 

occur in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. Where possible,

significance criteria use state or federal standards. For example, air quality significance criteria

follow the state and federal ambient air quality standards; noise significance criteria use

thresholds defined by FRA. In other cases, for example in the visual resources analysis, the
Section 3.1 Introduction

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.1-7 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

significance criteria rely on guidelines, policies, and assessment methodologies such as those 

used by FRA, as well as standards of professional practice.

3.1.3.4 Affected Environment

The affected environment discussion summarizes the information that provides the basis for 

analysis of potential impacts on each environmental resource. Information in the affected 

environment discussion is presented for the F-B LGA of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section, 

including a discussion of the regional context. The affected environment discussions describe the 

existing conditions available in the most recent publicly available data, or in data collected during 

fieldwork in 2015 and 2016. The Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS discusses the F-B LGA affected 

environment as well as a summary of the affected environment associated with the May 2014 

Project. In some chapters, 2035 conditions adopted by regional or local planning agencies are

discussed where relevant to particular resources, such as transportation and air quality.

3.1.3.5 Environmental Consequences

The environmental consequences discussion summarizes the analysis for the May 2014 Project

and describes the potential environmental impacts of the F-B LGA. Evaluations of direct and 

indirect project impacts reflect integration of project features that avoid or minimize impacts as a 

part of design or as consistent with mitigation adopted based on the Mitigation Monitoring and 

Enforcement Plan (Authority and FRA 2014). The explanations of the impact include the context, 

intensity, and duration of the impact, other impact characteristics as appropriate (e.g., direct, 

indirect, adverse, or beneficial), the consideration of mitigation measures as required by NEPA. 

The Fresno to Bakersfield Section Supplemental EIR/EIS also evaluates potential effects to the 

Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section from East American Avenue 

in Fresno County to Oswell Street in the City of Bakersfield. Since the release of the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service issued an 

amended Biological Opinion (USFWS 2017a) for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section from East 

American Avenue in Fresno County (the northern terminus of Construction Package 2/3) to 

Poplar Avenue in Kern County (the southern terminus for Construction Package 4). Pursuant to 

CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, Section 3.7, Biological Resources and Wetlands of this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS evaluates the expansion of the range of species and considers potential 

effects to the Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew.

3.1.3.6 Mitigation Measures and Avoidance and Minimization Measures

Mitigation measures adopted by the FRA as part of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS June 2014 Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Plan, and by the Authority as part of 

the May 2014 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and subsequent amendments, are 

discussed, as applicable, in each resource section. If resource topics identify new significant 

adverse impacts for the F-B LGA, the mitigation measures section identifies possible measures to 

avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for these effects. The section also 

summarizes potential impacts associated with implementing mitigation measures. If no mitigation 

measures are required, this section is not included. The abbreviations and numerical values of 

the mitigation measures identified in the resource sections follow the structure of the mitigation 

measures adopted as part of the June 2014 Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Plan. 

3.1.3.7 Cumulative Impacts

To understand the environmental implications of a proposed project, CEQA and NEPA require 

that effects be examined in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

projects. Section 3.19, Cumulative Impacts, discusses cumulative impacts for each resource and 

determines whether the proposed project’s incremental contribution to the significant cumulative 

impacts identified for each resource area is cumulatively considerable under CEQA, and whether 

its contribution would be significant under NEPA. 
Section 3.1 Introduction

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.1-8 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.1.4 Legal Authority to Implement Off-site Mitigation

Chapter 3 analyzes the HSR project’s potential physical environmental effects on various 

resource areas. If a potential significant effect is found, mitigation measures are proposed. Most 

mitigation measures identified are within the Authority’s jurisdiction and control. Some of the 

proposed mitigation measures, however, would occur on property the Authority would not own as 

part of its right-of-way acquisitions. These mitigation requirements are sometimes referred to as 

“off-site” mitigation. Mitigation that would occur on property not owned by the Authority would 

require working with the property owners or with the jurisdiction that regulates the property in 

order to accomplish that mitigation.

The Authority and the FRA have not identified any off-site mitigation measures that are infeasible 

or unlikely to occur. The off-site mitigation measures recommended in this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS are physically feasible. The Authority will continue the current practice of developing 

memoranda of understanding and funding agreements with local governments to facilitate 

implementation of off-site mitigation measures on property owned at the local agency level.